Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2

The High Court has unanimously dismissed an appeal against the Full Court decision in Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd v Bryant, in the matter of Gunns Limited (in liq) (receivers and managers appointed) [2021] FCAFC 64, finding that the “peak indebtedness rule” does not form part of s 588FA(3) of the Corporations Act and providing guidance as to how to approach the analysis required under that section.

Background

Re Intellicomms Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] VSC 228

The proceeding was brought by the liquidators of Intellicomms Pty Ltd (the Company) seeking relief in relation to a Sale Agreement dated 2021 between the Company and the defendant, Tecnologie Fluenti Pty Ltd (the Purchaser), involving the sale of certain business assets of the Company to the Purchaser.

Carna Group Pty Ltd v The Griffin Coal Mining Company (No 6) [2021] FCA 1214

In Carna Group Pty Ltd v The Griffin Coal Mining Company (No 6) [2021] FCA 1214, McKerracher J considered the meaning of “insolvent” within the context of a commercial contract and relevantly found that:

Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd v Bryant, in the matter of Gunns Limited (in liq) (receivers and managers appointed) [2021] FCAFC 64

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]